Hey now, you want the Celeron 300A, it had the 128kB L2 cache. It was a pretty big performance increase over the L2 lacking 300. The L2 cache added something like a 20% performance increase over the 300 that only improved as you overclocked.

The SLS is not meant to be economical. It's optimized for heavy lift in a single shot. SpaceX doesn't have any production rockets with its capability.

Even when Starship is out of development, it's limited to LEO without as-yet undeveloped in orbit refueling. It will be cool when it works but it's not a capability NASA should rely on it cause it's complicated and will likely take years to get right.

The SLS is also a capabilities program. Every second moron bitches that we "lost" the ability to build the Saturn V. We didn't lose anything. Congress dropped the Saturn like a bad habit and the people that built it retired or died without documenting process changes on the fully integrated systems. We could take the Saturn blueprints and build those systems today. The problem is the undocumented processes in the old systems would mean a lot of testing and reverse engineering those process changes. We in fact did this very thing with the J-2 engine for the J-2X.

Part of reusing a bunch of Space Shuttle technology in Ares/SLS is to keep the same things from happening to systems developed for the Shuttle. There's a lot of advanced engineering that went into the Shuttle over 30 years which would be criminal to lose because some engineers retired with documentation consisting of TODOs.

The ability to trade, sell, and own game items (weapons, trophies, powers, property) could be massive.

This is the dumbest fucking use for a blockchain besides all of the other dumb uses. There is absolutely zero financial upside for a developer to support some in-game item purchased from another developer. It's all cost with no benefit. Epic isn't going to spend a dime to support a TF2 hat in Fortnite. Valve made the money from the sucke...customer, not Epic, which means Epic is out the cost to support the item in their game.

If Epic charges to import the item to their game/platform, now you're paying twice for the same "item". That's worse than paying for it once.

Even if you decide to pay for all that artificial scarcity there's no guarantee an item or any in-game asset has any utility between games. A jet pack from a sci-fi MOBA is meaningless in a fantasy MMO. Mapping assets between different games would be a huge intractable problem.

That's to say nothing about the copyright issues. If a game let you import Mickey Mouse ears into a game they would be inviting a nice fat lawsuit from Disney unless they had a prior licensing agreement.

Using blockchains for in-game assets would be a compatibility nightmare, a copyright disaster, and a giant money sink for gamers. What an awesome fucking idea.

Besides point and shoot needs a good camera and media stack supports and enables content creators. There's a lot of people making video content for various social media sites entirely on their phones.

You son of a bitch, I'm in!

A couple years ago I bought several of the Raspberry Pi alternative boards to play with. This was before the Pi 4 so they all boasted more compute power or memory than the Pi 3. All of them are sitting in a fucking drawer and I reuse my pile of Pis for projects. Getting them to boot and run is just so much more of a hassle than a Pi. For these types of boards built-in eMMC is a nice feature on paper but in practice a pain in the ass. My goal with little boards is to make a fun or cool project, not spend my time fucking around getting the board working.

Yeah and just grab all the purified silicon wafers from out back. Then grab some of that natural Martian acid to etch away excess. Then wire it all together with some wires that grow freely on the Martian surface.

This guy's work is really interesting but it's still tied to a long complicated logistical base you're only going to find on Earth in relatively developed areas.

NFTs are just a way of authenticating ownership of something on a publically auditable ledger.

No. NFTs do not in any way authenticate ownership. They only show that some particular wallet address "paid" for a note field in a transaction. Whatever blockchain that transaction occurred on has zero legal authority over anything. No copyrights are assigned, no physical ownership changes, there's not even a guarantee that the same digital artifact wasn't sold on multiple blockchains or modified imperceptibly such that its hash changes and is "sold" all over again on the same blockchain.

NFTs have all the utility and intrinsic value as a hat in Team Fortress. The only difference is anyone with access to the blockchain the transaction lives on can verify that you're an idiot that paid money for the hat rather than just TF2 players.

The inverse square law largely prevents detection of unintentional signals. While it's certainly not impossible, it's extremely difficult. Even our most powerful omnidirectional broadcasts won't be discernible outside our solar system even if we parked our most powerful receivers out there. The only thing that might be detectable would be military or weather radar and those are very narrow beams. So not only would the signal be difficult to detect, being narrow beams with the Earth is constant motion, any receiver might only receive a single blip that never repeats because the beam never exactly sweeps over it again.

Oh wow, the whole network could possibly do...as many transactions as a single old IBM mainframe. That's not in any way impressive. Not only is the whole network slower than an old mainframe (at best) it burns orders of magnitude more power for that shit performance.

I swear cryptocurrency is the fucking Wimp Lo is finance. "I'm bleeding, that makes me the winner!"

Unless the NFT is transferring all copyrights to you, you don't "own" a damn thing. You have no legal authority to the item a token points to. Moreover your claim is only valid to people that accept the authority of whatever blockchain you conducted the transaction on.

Your comparison to baseball cards is ludicrous. Some baseball cards are worth money (to some people) because they have actual physical scarcity. Limited numbers were physically produced and a small portion even exist. A yet smaller portion of extant cards are in good shape. The rarity of the card, condition, and the notoriety of the card's subject all influence the value someone is willing to pay. Physical cards are literally non-fungible. If you have physical possession of a card you control all access to it.

An NFT has none of those properties. It's just a fiat token someone made. The token itself doesn't confer any benefits of physical ownership and rarely any copyright reassignment. Ergo an NFT doesn't give a buyer any control of the item so there's no ownership.

NFTs are pump and dump schemes. They're endlessly hyped up by hucksters to get people to spend real money on them in hopes they're buying a winning lottery ticket.

It's like you're striving to be wrong with your comments. I commend your commitment.

It used Firewire rather than USB. You could connect it to USB but it wouldn't charge, and the battery would die before you could load all your music on.

The first two generations of iPod only supported FireWire. FireWire charged it fine while loading music. The third generation added USB 2 support. An actual USB 2 port would charge it just fine. But good job juxtaposing two generations of a device years apart and still making a bullshit statement.

but back then it had a really nasty habit of deleting music off your iPod if it wasn't also in your library with the exact same metadata

You couldn't even connect the iPod to multiple computers if the autosync was enabled. So there was no way iTunes was deleting files with different metadata unless you did it by hand.

The low resolution meant they used the old Chicago bitmap font on it.

The iPod's screen was larger than a majority of other PMPs. It was pretty low resolution so Apple used a font originally developed to be readable on low resolution displays. Oh the humanity!

The iPod couldn't have been a good product! It was released into a crowded field of competitors and initially only supported Macs with FireWire by a minority player in the home computer market. Apple must have used some sort of cheat code or monopoly (in 2001 no less) to get people to buy iPods. It must have been bad because you've been telling yourself that with half-remembered frontier jibberish for twenty years.

The Magic Link devices did not have cellular and would in no way be considered a smartphone. They had a few interesting ideas but they were terrible devices. The UI was clunky to the point of unusable which was done no favors by the vastly underpowered hardware. Also Tony Fadell (of General Magic) was brought in to work on the iPod and then became SVP of that division.

When the iPod was released the cheaper players were flash based giving them a fraction of the storage of the iPod and other HDD players. So they might be a third of the price with less than a twentieth of the storage. The iPod didn't cost much more than the Nomad Jukebox while being similar in size to flash based players.

The iPod's overall UX was way better than other HDD players of the time. The device fit in one hand and could be navigated with one hand. It also did the library management with iTunes on your much faster computer so it didn't need to figure out broken ID3 tags and weird file names. This meant the UI was very snappy and wasn't wasting CPU time reading metadata from files but instead from it's pre-processed library database.

These things combined meant you could have days worth of music you could easily navigate one handed on a device that fit in actual human pockets. Just having a feature list on the back of the packaging isn't all that meaningful if those features aren't implemented well. Even a well implemented feature with a terrible interface might as well not exist as far as the user is concerned.

Apple sold a good product for a relatively small premium over competitors. The iPod definitely didn't fit any definition of a Veblen good. It's disingenuous to compare iPods to the far less capable flash players of the day and claim it was overpriced.

Psh, kids these days.